Progress Report 3

Backward Looking Summary
Situation
            Performance Test 1 and 2 were both successfully completed in the past several weeks. Utilizing the data and designs from preliminary and advanced Research and Development, Team C decided to test 2 types of AEVs for Performance Test 1. The first design was one of high stability but ultimately a higher weight, found in Figure 7. The second (and most successful) design was one based on Team C’s previous experiments with a vertical ‘fin’ body for the AEV, found in Figure 8. The second design was much lighter and overall simpler to construct/perform maintenance on. For Performance Test 2, Team C used two distinct types of coding practices for the AEV’s test runs. The first code used primarily focused on using a coasting as a method of stopping, because this was the method Team C used to stop in Performance Test 1. However, the team decided the more accurate method of stopping would be to utilize a power-braking system that reversed the motors. This method of stopping was used in the 2nd code for Performance Test 2, and was chosen to be used in the upcoming test runs, with some minor adjustments to the amount of power used on those brakes.
Results and Analysis
            Performance Test 1 was completed successfully, with promising advancements to the AEV for Performance Test 2. Performance Test 1 consisted of a horizontal design, accelerating the AEV up the track, where it would then pause for seven seconds, allowing the gate to open, and then proceeding through. Team C completed this task using a code that relied on the absolute position of the AEV on the track and coasting to a complete stop between the gates. Problems occurred when it was evident that coasting was an unreliable method. This was because the AEV repeatedly stopped at different distances throughout the track without a pattern. While time was running out, Team C managed to find a consistent way to fix this problem. It was to make sure the reflectance sensors were placed at the same position before every run. Not considering for this led the AEV to kill the motors at various positions because the reflectance sensors were not precise.
            After Performance Test 1 was conducted, the data from the run was collected off the AEV. Through Figure 1, The AEV used a max power of roughly 8 Watts. When the vertical design was tested, the AEV used a max power of 12.44 Watts. Team C moved on with the vertical design because it was sturdy and the configuration was the more efficient on the way back, which is when the AEV would be pulling the caboose. Performance Test 2 consisted of Performance Test 1 and then proceeding down the track to attach to a caboose and pulling it through the loading dock. This was done by editing the code to consist of power brakes instead of relying on coasting. Power brakes help the AEV stop quickly and more precisely. Team C performed trial and error to find an accurate code for the track being used. After looking at the data from Performance Test 2, Figure 3-4, it was obvious that the power braking used an excessive amount of energy. The three main peaks used roughly 33, 30, and 31 Watts of power. Therefore, Team C constructed a code that utilized power braking and coasting. The data is portrayed in Figure 5-6. Since the first peak was not altered it was still roughly 31 Watts of power. But the part of the code that worked on picking up the caboose was edited to coast; the power usage went down from 30 to 16 Watts.
Takeaways
 AEV: There are two options for making the AEV get down the hill, one is with the constant speed and power brake near the stopping point. While the other is to brake the motors to save energy and slide down the hill and coast to the stopping point.
 AEV: The AEV design with pull configuration is found to be more efficient that the push configuration.
 General project learnings: The team has been making substantial progress in designing the AEV and the code used to run the performance tests. Every trial that is run leads to a more efficient and accurate code.
 General project learnings: The team gets a substantial amount of work done during the official meetings. Therefore, the Performance Tests are completed during the allocated time.

Forward looking Summary

Situation  

            Next Team C will conduct Performance Test 3 which is Energy Optimization and Performance Test 4 which is final testing.  Performance Test 3 will use the vehicle chosen after performance test 1, so the vehicle which is the most successful completing the performance tests consistently and efficiently and the code chosen in Performance Test 2 which is the code that successfully completes the performance test efficiently.  The vehicle and code will be altered, but changed in smaller ways to optimize energy. This will be done by making simple design changes to the vehicle, such as moving the propellers to be positioned lower on the AEV. This repositioning could cause the propellers could allow the propellers to maybe more effectively move the AEV by using the same amount of energy.  The code will also be altered by potentially eliminating or decreasing power braking when possible, which is having the AEV reverse and accelerate to slow down the vehicle faster. Power braking uses more energy; therefore, it should be decreased when possible to optimize energy.

            In Performance Test 4 the team’s will try to decide on the most energy efficient design and code to pass the final test which involves the AEV triggering the gate, going though it, picking up cargo, coming back and triggering gate, and travel to close to the starting position with the cargo.  This will be done by doing many trial runs to make sure the code consistently works to further ensure the team will pass the final testing. The team will make small changes so the AEV stops where it needs to on the track during different parts of the final testing. Spending time on making sure the code is changed to produce the most consistent results is important because it is important for the AEV to stop exactly between the two sensors before the gate to be able to trigger the gate, and it is important to stop at a certain distance from the caboose and bring it back the right distance so the AEV can come back near the starting position where it is supposed to stop.

Forward Looking goals

            This week Team C will alter the code first because after looking at the power vs time and power vs distance plots from the previous performance test the team is sure on where changes can be made to optimize energy.  This should be completed before performance test 4. Then team C will altering the code to produce runs where the AEV stops at precise locations consistently for the final testing. This should be completed before the graded final performance test run.

Upcoming Schedule

Table 1: Week 14 schedule

Task Start Members Present Date Due Date Time Needed
Committee meeting 2 All 3/29/18 3/29/18 0.5 hr
Lab 11a (getting prepared for performance test 3) All 3/29/18 3/29/18 2hrs
Progress report 3 All 4/1/18 4/2/18
Lab 11b (executing performance test 3) All 4/2/18 4/2/18 1hr
Lab 11c (testing different codes) All 4/4/18 4/4/18 1hr
Getting prepared for final presentation All 4/7/18 4/7/18 3hrs
Lab 12a (finalizing the AEV design ) All 4/9/18 4/9/18 1hr
Lab 12b (deciding the best code for final test) All 4/11/18 4/11/18 1hr
Lab 12c (final test) All 4/12/18 4/12/18 2hrs
Lab 13a (getting ready for final presentation and CDR) All 4/14/18 4/19/18
Lab 13b(final oral presentation) All 4/14/18 4/18/18
Lab 13c (CDR) All 4/17/18 4/19/18

 

Appendix

Code used to test both horizontal and vertical design during performance test 1

motorSpeed(4,26.5);

//Runs all motors at a constant speed of 26.5% power

goToAbsolutePosition(123);

//sets all the motors to a constant power of 26.5% power until they reach a //position of 123 marks from its current position.

reverse(4);

//Reverses all motors

brake(4);

//brakes all the motors

goFor(9);

//breaks all the motors for 9 seconds

reverse(4);

//Reverses the polarity of all motors

motorSpeed(4,25);

goFor(3);////Runs all motors at a constant speed of 25% power for 3 seconds

brake(4);

//breaks all the motors

 

First code that was used for performance test 2 (1st code)

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,35);

goToAbsolutePosition(150);//runs all motors at a speed of 35% power until the AEV reaches a position of 150 marks from its starting point

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,60);

goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds

brake(4);

goFor(7);//breaks all motors for 7 seconds

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,27);

goToRelativePosition(160);

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,60);

goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds

brake(7);

goFor(6);//breaks all motors for 6 seconds

motorSpeed(4,45);

goToRelativePosition(118);//runs all motors at a speed of 45% power until the AEV reaches a position of 118 marks from its current point

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,60);

goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds

brake(4);

goFor(6);//breaks all motors for 6 seconds

Second code developed by the team for more efficient AEV design (2nd code)

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,35);

goToAbsolutePosition(147);//runs all motors at a speed of 35% power until the AEV reaches a position of 147 marks from its starting point

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,60);

goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds

brake(4);

goFor(7);//breaks all motors for 7 seconds

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,37);

goToRelativePosition(53);//runs all motors at a speed of 37% power until the AEV reaches a position of 53 marks from its current point

brake(4);

goFor(15);//breaks all motors for 15 seconds

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,45);

goToRelativePosition(118);/runs all motors at a speed of 45% power until the AEV reaches a position of 118 marks from its current point

reverse(4);//reverses all motors

motorSpeed(4,60);

goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds

brake(4);

goFor(6);//breaks all motors for 6 seconds

 

Meeting 6

Date: 3/22/2018

Time: 1;30 pm

Members present: Marley Mclaughlin, Nathan Teeters, Sanila Reza, Shreya Byreddy

Location: Hitchcock hall

Topics discussed:

The work that needs to be completed for CDR draft by individual members and topics for performance test 2 were discussed.  

Objective:

The main objective of today’s meeting was to finish CDR draft and the design the basic code that is used to test the AEV to test in the upcoming lab.

To do/action items:

The team came up with a plan to complete both CDR draft and performance test 2.

Decisions:

Marley was responsible for doing the discussions and conclusions for concept screening and scoring lab. Shreya had to be working on the appendix and the introduction for the draft. Nathan would be working on designing the sketches for the AEV’s in solidworks and doing the executive summary. Shanila would be working on experimental methodology for the draft. Apart from that everyone would have to come up with their own code for the performance teste 2 and the best code would be selected in the lab.

Reflections:

The team was able to finish the draft before the due date. Moreover the team made a good progress than the other meetings with the work assigned to each member. The codes written by each team member made the performance test a lot easier.

 

Meeting 7

Date: 4/1/2018

Time: 1 pm

Members present: Marley Mclaughlin, Nathan Teeters, Sanila Reza, Shreya Byreddy

Location: Hitchcock hall

Topics discussed:

Division of tasks among team members for the completion of progress report 3

Objective:

The takeaway from this meeting is to complete the progress report before hand and have some of the team members verify the content in order to deliver the main ideas and results behind the performance tests.

To do/action items:

The team has decided to split the work among all the members equally in order to complete the tasks with more efficiency and perfection.

Decisions:

Marley was responsible for completing the results and analysis of the observations from both the performance tests. Shreya had to be working on the appendix and setting up a schedule for the upcoming goals and the tasks that each team member has to perform. Nathan would be working on limitations and errors for both the performance test and would also be writing the situation for the backward looking summary. Shanila would be working on forward looking situation and forward looking goals for the upcoming tasks of the AEV design.

Reflections:

The team was able to finish the draft before the due date. Moreover the team made a good progress than the other meetings with the work assigned to each member. The codes written by each team member made the performance test a lot easier. The team came up with different ideas for the codes that make the AEV more efficient on the monorail tracks.

 

 

Figure 1: power vs. time for the horizontal pull AEV design

Figure 2: power vs. time for the  vertical push AEV design

Figure 3: power vs. time for the 1st code

 

Figure 4: power vs. time for the 2nd code

 

 

 

 

 

 

figure 5: orthographic drawings of the horizontal design


 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: orthographic drawings of the horizontal design